At 05:42 AM 7/17/2002, J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>The frustration results from an uncompleted report. The target is to
>demonstrate that different thinking families can have the same reading of
>the specs and can develop from them compatible softwares. The bugs may
>results from unclear specs or from an early development phase. That we
>need to know.
>
>The name of the participants would only help knowing the X, Y, Z
>architectures, used libraries, concept affiliations, "style", etc.. To
>evaluate if the specs testing spectrum is significant enough. But the
>better, easiest and common way would be that each participant describes
>his approach in his own terms (so there is no confidentiality break). IMHO
>this is basic to any hidden testing protocol.
Just for the record, THIS interoperabilty test was performed without
any vendor participation, thus it is real hard for the report to
talk about approaches or reasons why.
The real important thing here is there are three implementations
that work. This enables the DNSEXT working group to advance RFC1886bis to
Draft Standard.
The fact that one implementation forces services (mail, NS, ..) to
use IPv4 transport when IPv6 transport is available,
is not critical as the information is available via explicit AAAA query.
Olafur
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
